There is no logical argument for the middle ground.

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

I have no interest in the Bull Ring. I am enjoying the responses to your thread right here.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

Here is an argument for middle ground.

The very existence of the incorporeal relies on belief, not science. Therefore, the belief that there is no god and that the incorporeal does not originate from the corporeal is just as valid as the other two theories.

How is that an argument for the middle ground position? Belief is a product of the corporeal. Basically that is the atheist argument that man created God. So that is still the boundary condition of all things proceed from the material world.

Then there is only one logical argument. Because the idea that the incorporeal existed before space and time is a belief too.

Neither can be proven through observation. They can only be inferred from indirect evidence. That doesn’t mean they are not boundary conditions though. In fact, it has pretty much been debated since the beginning of man. Basically they are philosophical arguments which rely on logic and observations of the corporeal and incorporeal of existence.

And my middle ground argument fits those boundaries just as well. The main difference between my middle ground argument and one of your boundary arguments is that I make no claim that the incorporeal existed before space& time. Since there is absolutely no evidence of that, my middle ground argument stands just as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm going to leave you arguing your points with others. I am headed out to a show.

A full slate of some of the best rockabilly music you could ask for.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

Let me see if I get this. I point out that one of the two options is not logical, and you decide that should not be debated here, then you dismiss my middle ground argument, which is just as logical as one of the options you insist have no middle ground between?

lol Okey dokey

You have to be able to explain the logic and it has to make sense. But I do sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

You did not explain the logic of the two options listed in the OP.

I sure thought I did. Man has been pondering the origin of existence since man became conscious. The question is did the incorporeal create the corporeal? If that answer is yes, then the origin of everything in the universe - corporeal and incorporeal - originated from the incorporeal. If the answer is no, then everything in the universe - corporeal and incorporeal - originated from the corporeal.

There is logically no case for a middle ground position.

 

[ding]

I'm going to leave you arguing your points with others. I am headed out to a show.

A full slate of some of the best rockabilly music you could ask for.

I truly hope you enjoy yourself and be safe.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

I have no interest in the Bull Ring. I am enjoying the responses to your thread right here.

Great. I’m good either way.

The purpose of this OP is not to argue the validity of the two boundary conditions. The purpose of this thread is to debate the middle ground position.

My belief is that there is no logically valid argument for this case.

 

[ding]

This thread is retarded

Thank you for your participation.

 

[well named]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

 

[ding]

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

I have no problem with calling any of this an assumption. The question is is it a logical assumption. The reality is that any belief of the incorporeal not originating from the corporeal requires that there was at least one thing that was incorporeal that existed before space and time. Because if the incorporeal did not exist before space and time logic requires it to be a manifestation of the corporeal.

Or it manifested itself. Which is as logical as the assumption that the incorporeal existed before space and time.

From what? The material world? If the soul manifested itself it did so in the material being which came first and is still a product of the material world. So it is still an argument for the boundary condition that everything was manifested from the material world.

If the soul manifested itself, and it is not corporeal, then it did so outside of the bounds of the material world.

Or are you claiming that the only way the incorporeal can not come from the corporeal is that it existed before space & time?

No. Thoughts are incorporeal but only exist as a result of a material being’s existence. Same difference for a soul that manifests itself as a result of a material being’s existence.

For the incorporeal to manifest the incorporeal, the source of the incorporeal had to be outside of the existence of the material world which means outside of space and time.

 

[ding]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

It means these are the only two options. No other options exist except these two.

 

[ding]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

 

[well named]

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Yes thank you. It seems that I was interpreting the OP too much in relation to the thread about materialism. My view is that spirituality is entirely a human phenomena, and thus it originates from the natural world, because humans originate from the natural world. So my view is not a middle ground by your definition. I think phrased as above I tentatively agree that there is probably no middle ground, but I haven't thought about it much.

However, I also think some of your other comments suggest you're using different definitions at times, because for example you talked about thought as incorporeal, but the "incorporeality" of thought does not make it "spiritual" using the normal definitions of those words. It just makes it something that bears a complex relationship to physical matter. This kind of problem is why I assumed there would need to be some wrangling about definitions of corporeality.

I would tend to describe thought as "corporeal" in the sense that it logically supervenes upon the physical world -- there is no evidence for thoughts without a physical substrate to think them, e.g. actual thinking creatures in the natural world.

 

[fncceo]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Spirituality, a belief in the spiritual, doesn't confirm the existence of the spiritual. Believing in something doesn't make it real. For centuries, scientists believed in something called cosmic aether that filled the vacuum of space. Their best logic told them it must exist despite being unable to see, detect, or measure it.

Turns out, it didn't exist at all.

Human beings possess imagination. Imagination is very useful in filling in the gaps in our knowledge. Sometimes our imaginings are ultimately proven right. Other times, they are proven to be very wrong.

 

[ding]

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Yes thank you. It seems that I was interpreting the OP too much in relation to the thread about materialism. My view is that spirituality is entirely a human phenomena, and thus it originates from the natural world, because humans originate from the natural world. So my view is not a middle ground by your definition. I think phrased as above I tentatively agree that there is probably no middle ground, but I haven't thought about it much.

However, I also think some of your other comments suggest you're using different definitions at times, because for example you talked about thought as incorporeal, but the "incorporeality" of thought does not make it "spiritual" using the normal definitions of those words. It just makes it something that bears a complex relationship to physical matter. This kind of problem is why I assumed there would need to be some wrangling about definitions of corporeality.

I would tend to describe thought as "corporeal" in the sense that it logically supervenes upon the physical world -- there is no evidence for thoughts without a physical substrate to think them, e.g. actual thinking creatures in the natural world.

Looking back I probably should have used spirituality instead of incorporeal. Although the OP does specifically bring this up.

You do realize though that the consequence of your belief is that things like love are nothing more than electrochemical reactions in you brain, right?

 

[fncceo]

You do realize though that the consequence of your belief is that things like love are nothing more than electrochemical reactions in you brain, right?

The consequence being we are better able to process the feelings and make more logical relationship decisions?

 

[ding]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Spirituality, a belief in the spiritual, doesn't confirm the existence of the spiritual. Believing in something doesn't make it real. For centuries, scientists believed in something called cosmic aether that filled the vacuum of space. Their best logic told them it must exist despite being unable to see, detect, or measure it.

Turns out, it didn't exist at all.

Human beings possess imagination. Imagination is very useful in filling in the gaps in our knowledge. Sometimes our imaginings are ultimately proven right. Other times, they are proven to be very wrong.

This thread isn’t intended to prove one boundary condition or the other. But it is intended to make people think about the consequences of each boundary condition.

 

[well named]

You do realize though that the consequence of your belief is that things like love are nothing more than electrochemical reactions in you brain, right?

It would take more work than I want to put into this tonight to explain, but I think you're making the mistake of thinking that ontological reduction (e.g. thoughts supervene on the physical) amounts to explanatory reduction (you can only explain phenomena like love in terms of electrochemical reactions) or reduction in meaningfulness (thus love means nothing?).

I think that is wrong. Literally everything in human experience depends on electrochemical reactions in our brains, and we have plenty of evidence of that. It's an inescapable conclusion that we are physical beings, that we don't just have bodies but very much are bodies. That doesn't make our experiences less meaningful to us, and it doesn't mean that the language of physics is more appropriate to human expression than music or poetry. My love for my wife is not diminished by the realization that we are physical beings, nor does that realization reduce my sense of spiritual connection to the world or the meaningfulness of human existence. Metaphysics just isn't that important, in my view, and most of us function very well without ever even bothering to worry too much about it.

What is true is that a naturalist view of the world entails rejecting traditional mythologies that ground the meaning of human existence in more cosmic or absolute terms. It's a bit deflationary in that sense. The universe did not come into being for my express benefit, and it's up to me to find a meaning for my own life, it was not created ahead of time for me. But this is not as deflationary as you are implying, and it also entails a satisfying sense of individual freedom and self-actualization, in my opinion.

 

[fncceo]

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

I don't really even understand exactly what you mean by "the middle ground" here. My response was directed at the sentences I quoted. I just think the argument in the OP is flawed, as written, which is what I pointed out. I have no idea what I think of a "middle ground" because I don't know what it means.

If you want, feel free to try to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "middle ground", "corporeal", and "incorporeal" and I'll give you a fuller opinion. I suspect I will think your definitions are conflating the natural/supernatural and monism/dualism distinctions, as I said before, but I could be wrong.

The heart of the question is where did spirituality originate? From the material world? Or from spirit? If it originated from spirit, then logically the spirit had to exist before the material world. Otherwise it is a manifestation of the material world.

Does this help?

Spirituality, a belief in the spiritual, doesn't confirm the existence of the spiritual. Believing in something doesn't make it real. For centuries, scientists believed in something called cosmic aether that filled the vacuum of space. Their best logic told them it must exist despite being unable to see, detect, or measure it.

Turns out, it didn't exist at all.

Human beings possess imagination. Imagination is very useful in filling in the gaps in our knowledge. Sometimes our imaginings are ultimately proven right. Other times, they are proven to be very wrong.

This thread isn’t intended to prove one boundary condition or the other. But it is intended to make people think about the consequences of each boundary condition.

Ultimately, you can't reduce the unknown to a binary condition, one choice or the other.

The reality, particularly with something this unknown, could be something wholly different.

Human beings are capable of great leaps in logic which sometimes turn out to be insightful. Other times, our insights couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Erinwltr]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

For Pete's sake, you set the boundary conditions.

 

[fncceo]

I believe it is a binary condition. Either existence has no meaning or purpose or it does.

Not believing in a spiritual origin doesn't mean that existence is bereft of meaning or purpose. That meaning or purpose just might be much more complicated than we can imagine.

An ant colony in the middle of New York's Central Park has no idea that it owes its existence to a decision made by an unknown entity to create a park in the middle of the world's busiest metropolis.

The entities who decided by create the park never gave a moment's thought that the decision would ultimately lead to the creation of the ant colony in the middle of the park.

However, the connection in there, even it it can't be recognized by the ants or the humans.